Troubling Fourth Amendment Ruling in Wisconsin

A federal judge in Wisconsin has ruled that the police did not violate the Fourth Amendment when they secretly placed cameras on private property without a warrant.  The police suspected that the defendants were growing marijuana in an open field in Wisconsin. They placed cameras on the field and recorded incriminating images and discussions by the defendants. They eventually obtained a warrant but want to use the images recorded by the cameras before the warrant was obtained.  The defendants were seeking to suppress the images obtained before the warrant was issued.  The federal judge presiding over the case denied the Motion to Suppress by ruling that the Fourth Amendment only protects private residences and not open fields far from any residence.  The property in question was heavily wooded and clearly marked by "no trespassing" signs.  In spite of this the judge did not find that this established a "reasonable expectation of privacy" requiring the application of the Fourth Amendment.  The judge reasoned that if the police could conduct surveillance in person they could use electronic means to conduct the same surveillance.  But aside from the fact that the property was clearly marked with signs indicating that the public was not invited, the fact that the court allows such surveillance is a dramatic increase in the power of government to infringe on the public's right to privacy.  Its much easier for the police to install electronic surveillance devices in more places than they could use officers to conduct that surveillance. That dramatically increases the power of government to conduct surveillance. The Courts should be looking at this type of surveillance in a much more strict manner than this case suggests.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.legaldefenderspc.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

Supreme Court Considering Dog Drug Sniffing Cases Today

On December 5, 2006 a "crime stopper" had tipped off the police that marijuana was being grown inside the home of Joelis Jardines home near Miami Florida. Armed with this tip, a police officer went to the door of the residence with a trained drug sniffing Labrador Retriever named Franky. Franky sniffed the door and sat down, continuing to sniff the bottom of the door. The dog had been trained to give that sign if it smelled marijuana. The police then obtained a search warrant of Jardines's home and entered to find Jardines was growing marijuana plants inside the home and charged him with possession of 25 pounds of marijuana and stealing the electricity used to power the equipment used to help grow the marijuana.  The Florida Supreme Court invalidated the search by finding that Franky's sniff was an "unreasonable government intrusion into the sanctity of the home" and found that there was a greater expectation of privacy in a home than in a motor vehicle.  The Florida Supreme Court cited a 2001 United States Supreme Court decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia in which the court ruled that it was presumptive unreasonable for the authorities to use a heat detecting device to scan the inside of a home to determine whether marijuana was being grown inside the home. The issue in this case is whether the police can use a drug sniffing dog for a residence.

The case is Florida v. Jardines, 11-564.

The other dog drug sniffing case being considered today involves whether a drug sniffing dog can be used for a motor vehicle.  On June 24, 2006, a Florida police officer pulled over Clayton Harris' pickup truck near Bristol Florida.  The officer determined that Harris' registration was expired and saw an open can of beer in the cup holder. He noticed that Harris was breathing heavily and would not give permission to the officer to search his car. The officer then brought out Aldo, a drug sniffing German Shephard for a "free air sniff" and Aldo became excited and sat down when he approached the driver's door of Harris's truck.  The officer then searched Harris's truck and found 200 pseudoephedrine pills and 8,000 matches, which are the ingredients used to make methamphetamine.  The Florida Supreme Court threw out the search based on Aldo's drug sniffing because they found that the state failed to show the dog's reliability as a drug detector.  The Florida Supreme Court found that the state cannot just claim in a broad statement that because the dog has been trained as a drug sniffing dog that it is sufficiently reliable and qualified to detect drugs and that the state needs to produce evidence to the court to determine that it is reliable. The question in this case is how qualified does the dog have to be to conduct a valid drug sniff?

The case is Florida v. Harris, 11-817.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.legaldefenderspc.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

Federal Judge Tosses Search In Spite of Strong Odor of Marijuana

A federal judge in Chicago has suppressed the search of a vehicle in spite of the officer's testimony that in addition to seeing a jar with a green leafy substance inside the vehicle, he also noticed a strong odor of marijuana. In spite of this evidence, the federal judge presiding over the Federal drug case ruled that the police did not have sufficient probable cause to search the vehicle and excluded the evidence recovered during that search, namely, 10 grams of marijuana inside a mason jar, $8,600 in cash and what the government was alleging were drug recipes and a drug ledger.  The underlying drug case against the defendant is still proceeding to trial. The government still has plenty of evidence to support their case.  They have the statement of the defendant, the testimony of a co-defendant, surveillance of the drug making operation, receipts of chemicals and equipment needed to grow and make the illegal drugs, recipes that detail how to carry out the drug manufacturing and emails sent to a co-defendant who didn't realize he was communicating with an undercover federal agent.  What is interesting about this case is how the attorney for the defendant was able to exclude the evidence recovered during the search of the vehicle.  After the police officer curbed the defendant's vehicle, he noticed a mason jar inside the vehicle that contained a "green leafy substance."  That jar has since been lost by the police, so the judge ruled that the jar could not be used to justify the search of the vehicle. The officer then testified that he noticed the strong odor of marijuana and proceeded to search the vehicle. The defendant had been inside a facility that was growing marijuana plants. The government was alleging that the strong odor of marijuana came from the clothes of the defendant. A federal agent even testified that he had been inside the same facility and that the strong odor of marijuana remained on his clothing after he left. The attorney for the defendant hired an expert witness who testified that in order for that strong odor of marijuana to be present, the marijuana plants must be a certain age and at a certain stage of growth to cause the smell to remain on clothing. The expert reviewed a video taken of the marijuana operation and testified that the plants were too young to cause the type of odor that the government was alleging was present at the time of the stop of the defendant's vehicle.  As a result, the judge ruled that the police did not have sufficient probable cause to search the vehicle and excluded all the evidence recovered during that search.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.legaldefenderspc.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

Connecticut Legalizes Medical Marijuana

On Monday Connecticut became the 17th state to approve medical marijuana. The measure will not take effect for a few months but once it does, people who have one of 11 medical conditions specified in the legislation, including AIDS, glaucoma, Parkinson's Disease and multiple sclerosis. The law is being called one of the most restrictive in the nation but the goal of the legislators in Connecticut is to avoid the problems that exist in California. In order to be allowed to access the medical marijuana in Connecticut, the doctor must first register the patient with a state agency known as Consumer Protection. The doctor must certify that the patient has been diagnosed with one of the 11 medical conditions specified in the legislation and certify that the patient would benefit from the use of the medical marijuana.  The patient must then register with the agency which will require that the patient provide personal information and will be issued a photo identification. Use of the medical marijuana will not be allowed in schools, workplaces, or any other public places and not in the presence of anyone under the age of 18.  The marijuana that will be used must be grown in Connecticut in an indoor and secure facility. Only 10 producers will be licensed to grow the marijuana in Connecticut and a network of regulated pharmacists will be allowed to distribute the marijuana. 

It will be interesting to see if this restrictive measure in Connecticut works. If it does, it may make it easier to pass similar measures in other states if its proven that it can be done in a way that makes it more acceptable in more conservative states.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.legaldefenderspc.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

Jury Nullification in New Hampshire

A jury in New Hampshire has applied the principle of jury nullification and found a defendant not guilty of growing and possessing marijuana.  Jury Nullification is an age old principle which allows a jury to find a defendant not guilty and release them even though they are technically guilty of the crime.  This principle is applied in order to protect citizens from an overly zealous prosecution and to curtail the power of the government.  In June of this year, the governor of New Hampshire signed into law which would allow a jury to be informed that they could apply this principle to a case. This law does not take effect until January of 2013 but has been discussed a great deal in New Hampshire.  Last month, Doug Darrell, a 59 year old Rastafarian piano tuner and woodworker, a peaceful member of the community, and a man who had been married for almost 40 years, was put on trial for a drug offense which carried the possibility of seven years in prison.  There was no doubt that Mr. Darrell was growing marijuana plants in the back yard of his house. A National Guard helicopter flying over his property spotted the marijuana plants growing in his back yard. Prosecutors offered Mr. Darrell a deal that would have avoided jail time but required that he plead guilty to a misdemeanor drug offense.  Mr. Darrell, citing his religion and his view that marijuana is a sacrament, rejected the deal and went to trial. After hearing all the evidence, the jury decided to acquit Mr. Darrell and set him free.  The jury determined that Mr. Darrell was a peaceful man and decided to vote their conscience and find Mr. Darrell not guilty. The jury was concerned about what kind of precedent it would set for the government if they would convict an otherwise law abiding man of such a crime. There is a national movement among civil liberty groups to push the notion of jury nullification to the forefront of the public debate as a way to curtail the power of government and put more power in the hands of the citizens. This case in New Hampshire is an opening shot which may start the debate moving forward.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.legaldefenderspc.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

3 States to Vote on Legalizing Marijuana in November

Three states are set to allow voters to decide whether to legalize the use of marijuana in their states for recreational use this fall.  The three states are Colorado, Oregon and Washington.  A recent poll by MSNBC indicates that nationally, 51% of the public believe that marijuana should be legalized for recreational use.  On reason that states are moving in the direction of legalizing marijuana is financial. These states stand to gain additional tax revenue if marijuana was legalized and would save substantial sums of money by not having to spend money arresting, prosecuting and incarcerating people charged with violating these drug laws which make the mere possession of marijuana illegal.  If these measures pass, then it will be interesting to see how the Federal Government responds. There will be a conflict between state law and federal law and it will be interesting to see how that conflict plays out in the political and legal arena.

We will keep our readers updated on the progress and outcome of these ballot measures.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.legaldefenderspc.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

Connecticut Approves Medical Marijuana

Connecticut has become the 17th state to approve the use of medical marijuana.  The measure was approved by the Connecticut State Senate on a 21 to 13 vote.  The Connecticut measure would set up 10 secure cultivation centers throughout the state.  Growers will be required to pay $25,000 up front and show that they will be able to sustain a business model that makes it profitable for them.  Patients will have to be certified to be eligible for medical marijuana by their doctors and will have to pay a $25 fee to participate in the program.  Participants will be allowed to get the marijuana from this network of growers.  Use of the marijuana is only limited to patients who have cancer, glaucoma, HIV, AIDS, Parkinson's, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injuries, epilepsy, malnutrition, wasting disease, Crohn's Disease and post traumatic stress disorder.

There is no word yet on whether medical marijuana will be approved in Illinois.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.legaldefenderspc.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

Federal Judge Rules State Medical Marijuana Laws Does Not Bar Federal Prosecution

In a big blow to supporters of state medical marijuana laws, a federal judge in Montana ruled that Montana's laws legalizing medical marijuana does not prohibit the federal government from prosecuting people.  Last year federal agents raided more than two dozen medical marijuana providers.  Fourteen of those raided filed a lawsuit in Federal Court claiming that the raids violated their rights because in 2004 voters passed an initiative that allowed them to grow and produce marijuana for medical purposes.  The federal judge presiding over the case. Judge Donald Molloy, dismissed the lawsuit and held that the providers can be prosecuted under the federal Controlled Substances Act even if they followed state law by holding that the supremacy clause applies to medical marijuana laws.  The supremacy clause provides that when there is a conflict between state and federal law, federal law wins.  The plaintiffs also argued that a memo from the Justice Department had led them to believe that the federal government would not do anything so long as people were following state law.  Molloy found that this memo was not binding and did not excuse the plaintiffs from violating federal law.  The federal government's raids of the medical marijuana providers has had a big impact on the providers.  Many providers have shut down their businesses and several dozen of those raided have plead guilty to federal drug charges.  The 2004 voter initiative has been repealed and the legislature has a new medical marijuana law which dramatically curtails the medical marijuana industry in Montana.  There were 395 registered medical marijuana providers at the end of December of 2011 compared to 4,650 at the end of May of 2011.  This decision opens the door to the federal government imposing its will over states that have legalized medical marijuana.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

Evanston Lessens Penalties For Pot Possession

Last night, the Evanston City Council unanimously passed an ordinance which lessens the penalties for possession of small amounts of marijuana.  Evanston always had a Village Ordinance in plays which provides that if someone was caught with 10 grams or less of marijuana, they could be issued a ticket for a fine between $50 to $500.  State law provides that possession of 10 grams or less of marijuana is a Class B Misdemeanor, punishable by up to 6 months in county jail and a fine up to $1,500.  Under the old law, Evanston police had the discretion to charge someone with the Village Ordinance or the state law.  Yesterday's measure removes the discretion from the police and mandates that only tickets be issued but that the fines remain between $50 to $500.  This measure had originally been proposed by the Mayor of Evanston who was concerned that arrests of young people caught with small amounts of marijuana made them unable to find jobs in the future.  Evanston joins a slowly growing national movement towards lessening the punishment for being caught with small amounts of marijuana.  Locally, Cook County passed a measure in 2009 which lessens the penalties for possession of small amounts of marijuana and in October, Skokie, also passed a measure which allows for the issuance of tickets for the possession of 2.5 grams or less of marijuana.  Nationally, 14 states have taken steps to lessen the penalties for the possession of small amounts of drugs.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

California Medical Assn Calls For Legalization of Pot

On Friday, the Trustees of the California Medical Association, which represents more than 35,000 physicians in the State of California, approved a resolution at their annual meeting calling for the legalization of marijuana.  This is the first major medical association in the United States to call for the legalization of marijuana.  By taking this position, the association is not saying that there are enough benefits to medical marijuana to justify that it be legalized.  They actually state that there are few, if any, benefits to using medical marijuana.  Rather, they argue that the consequences of criminalizing marijuana greatly outweigh the hazards.  They believe that more research needs to be done to further determine if there are any benefits to medical marijuana and find themselves in a difficult position when they prescribe marijuana because they are violating federal law when they do so.  They agree that there are some dangers to using marijuana but those dangers can be addressed by regulating them the way that alcohol and tobacco are regulated.  In discussing the hazards of criminalizing marijuana, they point to the increased cost of prosecuting and imprisoning people, the damage this does to families and the racial inequalities that are present when defendants are sentenced.  

Not everyone agrees with the California Medical Association including the federal government which considers marijuana to be has bad as any other drug.  Recently, the Obama Administration turned down a request to reclassify marijuana under federal drug laws and has started cracking down on medical marijuana facilities in California including threatening to prosecute landlords who allow medical marijuana dispensaries to operate out of their properties.  There is a slow but steady movement towards trying to legalize marijuana in California.  However, last year California voters voted down Proposition 19 which would have legalized the cultivation and possession of small amounts of marijuana while Los Angeles has recently passed regulations affecting medical marijuana dispensaries ordering the closing of hundreds of them.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.thelegaldefenders.com or all us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

Cook County Expands Tickets For Low Level Drug Offenses

Yesterday, the Cook County Board took a big step in an effort to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana. In 2009 the Cook County Board passed an ordinance which provided for the issuance of tickets for the possession of small amounts of marijuana. But recently, various news outlets reported that zero tickets had been issued. The 2009 measure only applied to unincorporated areas of Cook County that were being patrolled by the Cook County Sheriff. The new measure includes areas in which the Cook County Sheriff provides primary law enforcement duties, such as south suburban Ford Heights. The Cook County Sheriff's office now reports that they are ready to write tickets for the possession of less than 10 grams of marijuana pursuant to the measure passes yesterday by the Cook County Board. The President of the Cook County Board, Tony Perwinkle, has come out strong in favor of decriminalizing the possession of small amounts of marijuana. She points to the high cost of keeping offenders in jail until they go to their preliminary hearing, where most such cases are dismissed anyway. It costs about $143 a day to keep an inmate in Cook County Jail. Perwinkle has stated that she will help lead an effort to have the Illinois legislature pass a similar measure throughout the State of Illinois.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

Oregon Medical Marijuana Gun Permit Case Goes To High Court

The Oregon Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of a medical marijuana patient who has been denied the right to a concealed handgun permit.  Cynthia Willis is a medical marijuana patient.  In 2008, Cynthia applied for a permit to carry a concealed firearm.  Jackson County Sheriff Mike Winters denied Cynthia her permit by claiming that granting her a permit would violate federal laws prohibiting drug users from possessing firearms.  The Jackson County Circuit Court and the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled against Sheriff Winters.  The American Civil Liberties Union and Oregon Attorney General John Kroger have joined Cynthia in her fight against Sheriff Winters.

Oral arguments are scheduled to be heard on March 3, 2011.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

Supreme Court Agrees To Hear 2 Criminal Cases

Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court announced which cases it will hear in the upcoming fall term.  Among the 14 cases they announced they would be hearing were 2 criminal cases.  One of the cases was Kentucky v. King.  The cases will decide whether to further erode the exclusionary rule when the police illegally seize evidence.  The police were chasing a suspected drug dealer into an apartment building.  As they walked down the hallway they smelled marijuana and broke into an apartment.  Inside they found King and 2 other individuals with marijuana and crack cocaine.  The police did not have a warrant to enter the apartment and the original suspect that the police had been chasing had entered the apartment across the hall.  King eventually plead guilty but challenged the search of the apartment on appeal.  In January, the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled that the police did not have the right to enter the apartment because there was no emergency and threw out the evidence seized.  The Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal of the Kentucky prosecutors who are arguing that the police were justified in entering the apartment because they made an honest mistake.  Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that evidence seized as a result of an honest mistake by the police should not be excluded from evidence.  To view our discussion of that Supreme Court decision, click here.

In the second criminal case,  the Court will decide whether lab technicians must be required to be available to testify at criminal trials.  Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that lab technicians were witnesses for the state and must be made available to testify.  But in a case out of New Mexico, Bullcoming v. New Mexico, the courts ruled that a lab worker who simply recorded the results of a blood alcohol testing machine in a DUI case did not have to testify.  The Supreme Court will get to decide whether the lab worker could also be required to testify.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

GPS Case Causes Split Of Authority On Need To Obtain Warrant

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, based in California and covering the nine western states, ruled that law enforcement can place GPS trackers on cars, without seeking a warrant.  In 2007, Drug Enforcement Agents (DEA) in Oregon attached a GPS to a Jeep owned by Juan Pineda-Moreno, who was being investigated for growing marijuana.  After Pineda-Moreno was arrested, prosecutors argued that his Jeep had been driven several times to several locations where agents discovered that marijuana was being grown.  Prosecutors used the GPS data to link Pineda-Moreno to those locations.  Faced with this evidence, Pineda-Moreno pled guilty to growing marijuana and served a 51 month jail sentence.  However, he appealed the placing of the GPS device on his Jeep on the grounds that sneaking onto his private property and placing a GPS device to secretly track his Jeep violated his reasonable expectation of privacy.  Evidence shows that DEA agents went onto his property several times without his permission and without his knowledge.  His appeal was rejected twice by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  Earlier this month the full court also rejected his appeal without comment.

It's likely that this issue will have to be decided by the Supreme Court.  A federal appeals court in the District of Columbia arrived at an entirely different conclusion when they ruled that a warrant is required to place a GPS tracking device on a suspected drug dealer's vehicle.  We published an article concerning this case earlier this month. 

The dissent in the Pineda-Moreno case called the majority's ruling "creepy" and "underhanded."  At least one privacy advocate warned that if this ruling stands, citizens will have to take active measures to protect their privacy, such as placing their vehicle in a garage, posting no trespassing signs or building a fence.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

Garbage Collectors Enlisted To Fight Crime

The Cook County Sheriff has drafted 25 garbage collectors who work for Waste Management in Alsip and trained them to look for suspicious activity while working, such as drugs in the garbage, marijuana plants growing in yards and abandoned vehicles on the street.  There is no costs to the taxpayers or the county for these additional crime fighters.  Waste Management is really the force behind this program.  They started "Waste Watch" in 2004 and have actually implemented this program in Orland  Park since 2006.  The Alsip based Waste Management garbage collectors handle waste from Chicago Ridge, Oak Lawn, Orland Park, Palos Heights and several other suburbs.  The garbage collectors will have no police power.  They will simply be trained to know what to look for and anything they report to the police will be held confidential.

Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart said that he hopes to expand this program to all the suburbs in Cook County.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

Medical Marijuana Cards Available To Out Of State Residents In Montana

The Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services has decided to issue medical marijuana cards to out of state residents.  The Department was going to issue medical marijuana cards to legal residents of Montana only when a closer examination of the state law revealed that there was nothing in the law which required recipients of the medical marijuana cards to be residents of Montana.  Consequently, the Department decided to go ahead and process out of state resident applicants.  At the end of July, 2010, 23,500 patients were registered in the medical marijuana registry.  That was an increase of nearly 4,000 people from June and more than 12,300 since the beginning of this year.  Department officials had discovered that several out of state residents had been issued medical marijuana cards so they decided to tighten the policy.  However, after they closely examined the law they realized that it was silent on the residency requirement and decided to continue issuing cards to out of state residents.  Department officials have stated that they will continue to do this until the state legislature changes the law and fixes the loophole. 

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

Supreme Court Rules On Aggravated Felony For Immigration Purposes

The United States Supreme Court today issued a ruling on a case involving what is considered an aggravated felony for immigration deportation purposes.  Jose Angel Carachuri-Rosendo was convicted in state court of simple drug possession of a single Xanax pill a year after he had received 20 days in jail for possessing 2 ounces of marijuana.  The state prosecutor had the option to charge him with an aggravated felony because if was his second case, but chose not to.  The federal government sought to have him removed from the country because he had committed an aggravated felony on the basis that it was his second conviction which amounted to a serious, or aggravated felony.  Carachuri-Rosendo argued that he had not been convicted of an aggravated felony.  The Supreme Court held that the immigration court cannot enhance the state judgment by substituting its judgment over that of the state court.  Since there was no finding of recidivism by the state court, the immigration court cannot add their judgment to that of the state court.

The impact of this decision is that a second conviction does not automatically make someone eligible for deportation.  The federal government had argued that since a second conviction for a minor drug offense would be considered an aggravated felony under federal law, immigrants convicted of a second minor drug offense in state court would be subject to automatic deportations.  That is no longer the case and thousands of immigrants who fall under the same set of facts can now petition the immigration judge for leniency.  Before this decision, deportation was automatic and they could not seek leniency.  Carachuri-Rosendo, who was well over 30 years old, has been in the United States legally since he was 5 years old.  His common law wife, mother, sister and 4 children are all U.S. citizens.  Carachuri-Rosendo had actually been deported to Mexico.

The case is Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 09-60.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

District of Columbia Approves Medical Marijuana

The District of Columbia Council approved medical marijuana for Washington, D.C.  The vote was 13 to 0.  The measure permits the mayor to set up eight dispensaries where patients can receive up to two ounces of marijuana per month.  Washington, D.C., has been at the forefront of pushing for the legalization of medical marijuana even though it is not available in the district.  In 1998, sixty-nine percent of voters approved a ballot to legalize medical marijuana.  However, Congress barred them from implementing the program.  Public approval of legalizing medical marijuana is very high.  In a recent Associated Press-CNBC poll, roughly two-thirds of those polled supported the legalization of medical marijuana.  

The bill now goes to the mayor for his expected approval.  The measure is then sent to Congress and the White House which have 30 days to approve or block the measure.  The block the measure, both the House and Senate must pass a joint resolution and the President must sign it.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

Maryland Moving Towards Legalizing Medical Marijuana

Earlier this month the Maryland Senate voted overwhelmingly to legalize medical marijuana.  The bill was approved 35-12 without any objections and without any discussion.  Maryland is seeking to join 14 other states that legalize medical marijuana.  Current Maryland marijuana laws are already favorable towards medical marijuana.  Current law allows a defendant charged with possession of marijuana to raise a medical necessity defense.  If the judge determines that the use of the marijuana is beneficial to that defendant, the judge will impose a maximum fine of $100.  Since Maryland already basically allows for the medical use of marijuana, supporters of the effort to legalize medical marijuana argue that this would allow patients to not have to rely on the black market to obtain their marijuana.  This measure now moves to Maryland's House of Representatives for their consideration.

There is a definite surge in the movement to legalize medical marijuana in the United States.  Last year, more than a dozen states, including Illinois, moved forward on legislation to legalize medical marijuana.  If the trend continues, very soon, half of Americans may be living in states that legalize medical marijuana.  In November, California voters will get to decide whether to legalize the possession of marijuana for all adults.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

Medical Marijuana Patient Firing To Be Reviewed in Washington

The Washington Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of a medical marijuana patient who was fired after a drug test administered by her employer came back positive for marijuana.  The patient, who has not been named to protect her privacy, applied for a job in Kitsap County in Washington.  When she applied she informed her employer that she was an authorized medical marijuana patient.  Knowing this, she was hired to answer phone calls and reply to emails.  A week later, a pre-employment drug test came back positive and she was fired.  She sued the employer in 2006.  The Court of Appeals in Washington recently ruled that the state's medical marijuana laws protects against criminal prosecutions but offers no protection against employers.  The Washington Supreme Court has agreed to review the ruling.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.